*Aqua* Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 In my opinion a tank is a main battle tank. A heavy/super-heavy armored vehicle on tracks with a 360° moveable turret that houses a heavy anti-armor gun which has a range of <10 km. Main prey are other main battle tanks and armored vehicles. That means, this is a tank: Spoiler Leopard 2 Heavy armor - check, 360° turret - check, heavy anti-armor gun with range of <10 km - check But these are not: Spoiler Panzerhaubitze 2000 Not a tank because it attacks targets from distances of 20 to 50 km. Also it's weapon is meant to destroy an area, not a single armored vehicle. M2 Bradley Not a tank because it only has light/medium armor and a chain gun. It fact it's an armored troop transporter with seats for up to 12 hitchhikers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 hour ago, *Aqua* said: In my opinion a tank is a main battle tank. A heavy/super-heavy armored vehicle on tracks with a 360° moveable turret that houses a heavy anti-armor gun which has a range of <10 km. Main prey are other main battle tanks and armored vehicles. That means, this is a tank: Reveal hidden contents Leopard 2 Heavy armor - check, 360° turret - check, heavy anti-armor gun with range of <10 km - check But these are not: Reveal hidden contents Panzerhaubitze 2000 Not a tank because it attacks targets from distances of 20 to 50 km. Also it's weapon is meant to destroy an area, not a single armored vehicle. M2 Bradley Not a tank because it only has light/medium armor and a chain gun. It fact it's an armored troop transporter with seats for up to 12 hitchhikers. Wait, how did we get from Kerbal rockets to tanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 hour ago, *Aqua* said: In my opinion a tank is a main battle tank. A heavy/super-heavy armored vehicle on tracks with a 360° moveable turret that houses a heavy anti-armor gun which has a range of <10 km. Main prey are other main battle tanks and armored vehicles. That means, this is a tank: Reveal hidden contents Leopard 2 Heavy armor - check, 360° turret - check, heavy anti-armor gun with range of <10 km - check But these are not: Reveal hidden contents Panzerhaubitze 2000 Not a tank because it attacks targets from distances of 20 to 50 km. Also it's weapon is meant to destroy an area, not a single armored vehicle. M2 Bradley Not a tank because it only has light/medium armor and a chain gun. It fact it's an armored troop transporter with seats for up to 12 hitchhikers. Except there were tanks, designed for battle, with a 50 cal and a 30 cal. They're still tanks. I agree with Fredinno, how did this happen? Anyways, I'd be more willing to ride that Kerbal rocket than the space shuttle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temstar Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 42 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: Except there were tanks, designed for battle, with a 50 cal and a 30 cal. They're still tanks. No the battle field role between the two are extremely different. For one thing IFVs are specifically design to work along side squads of infantry, where as troops are suppose to stay far away from MBTs when they do their thing least they get fragged by MBT's reactive armour. Calling IVFs "tanks" is as wrong as calling sell-propelled gun tanks. They may look kind of similar to a tank if you squint at them but they are designed for every different jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 18 minutes ago, Temstar said: No the battle field role between the two are extremely different. For one thing IFVs are specifically design to work along side squads of infantry, where as troops are suppose to stay far away from MBTs when they do their thing least they get fragged by MBT's reactive armour. Calling IVFs "tanks" is as wrong as calling sell-propelled gun tanks. They may look kind of similar to a tank if you squint at them but they are designed for every different jobs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Combat_Car Yes, it's called a combat car, but it's actually a light tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temstar Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Combat_Car Yes, it's called a combat car, but it's actually a light tank. What's your point? That it uses .50cal and .30cal as its weapons? That's sort of par for the course for that time period, for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_II Has a 20mm autocannon for a main gun The M1 Combat Car is explicitly designed to NOT to work with infantry, as the 72km/h top speed shows. The thinking at the time was that for infantry tanks that are designed to attack along side with infantry a top speed of about the same as human walking pace was enough. Then you need really fast calvary tanks to dash along and exploit openings in the enemy line. M1 Combat Car is decidedly a calvary tank given its very high speed for its time. Of course since calvary tanks are charging around the battlefield they are going to run into calvary tanks from the other side who's also doing the same, and it was immediately obvious to everyone that a 50 cal was way underpowered when it was potentially running into things like BT-2 which was just as fast but had a 37mm gun, or even worse the slower T-26 with a whopping 45mm gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Just now, Temstar said: What's your point? That it uses .50cal and .30cal as its weapons? That's sort of par for the course for that time period, for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_II Has a 20mm autocannon for a main gun The M1 Combat Car is explicitly designed to NOT to work with infantry, as the 72km/h top speed shows. The thinking at the time was that for infantry tanks that are designed to attack along side with infantry a top speed of about the same as human walking pace was enough. Then you need really fast calvary tanks to dash along and exploit openings in the enemy line. M1 Combat Car is decidedly a calvary tank given its very high speed for its time. Of course since calvary tanks are charging around the battlefield they are going to run into calvary tanks from the other side who's also doing the same, and it was immediately obvious to everyone that a 50 cal was way underpowered when it was potentially running into things like BT-2 which was just as fast but had a 37mm gun, or even worse the slower T-26 with a whopping 45mm gun. It doesn't matter. My point is that it's still a tank. Not a modern one, or a main battle tank, but still a tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temstar Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: It doesn't matter. My point is that it's still a tank. Not a modern one, or a main battle tank, but still a tank. Yes, it's true. But how does that relate to the M2 Bradley? The M1 Combat Car was designed to do the job of being a calvary tank, it was bad at it but that just made it a rubbish tank. M2 Bardley was designed to do the job of an Infantry Fight Vehicle, it's actually very good at that. Being an IFV meant it had to have features that specifically make it a very terrible tank if you try to shoehorn it into that role - for example the lack of Explosive Reactive Armour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, Temstar said: Yes, it's true. But how does that relate to the M2 Bradley? The M1 Combat Car was designed to do the job of being a calvary tank, it was bad at it but that just made it a rubbish tank. M2 Bardley was designed to do the job of an Infantry Fight Vehicle, it's actually very good at that. Being an IFV meant it had to have features that specifically make it a very terrible tank if you try to shoehorn it into that role - for example the lack of Explosive Reactive Armour. I never mentioned the M2 Bradley. The person I quoted said that only main battle tanks are tanks. I never even mentioned the IFV class of fighting vehicle. Also, that kind of armor isn't exactly the best. It doesn't last forever and can run thin fast. Then it's just a matter of having enough shots and living long enough to counter it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Uuuuuuuuh.......What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I think this one is safely off the rails and not coming back. Closed, if you want to talk AFVs please start a thread in the Lounge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts